Catholic Eschatology Examined

8/6/2019 Catholic Eschatology Examined

1/22

"CATHOLIC ESCHATOLOGY"

EXAMINEDA REPLY TO THE

REV. H. N. OXENHAM'S RECENT PAPERS IN THE

CONTEMPORARY REVIEWBY

ANDREW JUKESREPRINTEDfrom the CONTEMPORARY REVIEW

London: Longmans, Green, and Co.1876

PREFACE.

THE following pages first appeared as an article in the Contemporary Review for July 1876,

under the title of "The Restitution of All ThingsThe Teaching of Scripture and of the Church,"

in reply to four papers from the pen of the Rev. H. N. Oxenham, which came out in the January,February, March, and April numbers of the same periodical, and were there entitled "Eternal

Perdition and Universalism, from a Roman Catholic point of view." Since then Mr. Oxenham hasreprinted his papers in a separate form, under the title of "Catholic Eschatology and

Universalism," together with a rejoinder (which appeared in the Christian Apologistfor October1876) to my criticisms. I therefore yield to the strongly expressed wish of others that my paper

also should be reprinted. It will be seen that I have not added any reply to Mr. Oxenham'srejoinder. That rejoinder throughout is full of the same characteristics which mark the papers

here examined. The one sufficient reply to it will be found in simply comparing Mr. Oxenham'sassertions with the facts or quotations which are referred to and commented upon by him. This

can easily be done by any competent reader who wishes for the truth, as both in my volume on

the "Restitution of All Things," and in this present paper, full references are given to all thepoints in question, (Note: The references to the pages of Mr. Oxenham's papers follow thenumbering of the pages of the Contemporary.) and I am content to leave the facts of the case to

speak for themselves with any who will make the necessary examination.

I will only here say further, that the new title chosen by Mr. Oxenham for his papers, and which I

now follow, viz. "Catholic Eschatology and Universalism," though it may be more imposing,seems to me less correct than their original designation. "Catholic Eschatology," one would have

thought, must surely include some notice at least of the bliss of the redeemed, of the work of thesaints as kings and priests with Christ, and of their glory as joint-heirs with the Eternal Son in

destroying the works of the devil, and in reconciling and subduing all things unto Himself, that

God may be all in all. But Mr. Oxenham's "Catholic Eschatology" has nothing to tell us of allthis, but only of that death and judgment and destruction which Holy Scripture calls aeonial, andwhich, Mr. Oxenham contends, is never-ending. The omission is significant and instructive.

The Judge is at the door. He will ere long decide who have been true, and who false, witnesses of

Him.


2/22

HIGHGATE:November1, 1876.

"CATHOLIC ESCHATOLOGY"

EXAMINED.

TRUTH, like Christ, age after age, is on its trial before men; but while it is being tried, it is really

trying everything. Passed on from one tribunal to another, from high-priests to rulers, like Himwho was the Truth, and always on its first appearance misunderstood, misrepresented, and even

rejected as a deceiver, by those who should be foremost to welcome it, it is yet, by the veryjudgment men pass upon it, revealing what they are, and sifting all who come in contact with it.

In this trial, some of those least valued by the world by their very weakness and griefs areprepared to recognise as divine that which the learned and self-satisfied agree to cast out. These,

attracted to the truth, even though they little understand, and at times may even doubt and denyit, first giving themselves to it, and only so fully receiving it, cannot but in due time become its

witnesses, content, even if it is mocked and misrepresented and slain and buried out of sight, forits sake to be cast out and misrepresented with it, in the faith that, spite of its rejection, it yet

must prevail, and that, though slain, it will surely rise again.

Some months ago a truth, which in every age has been knocking at men's hearts, and has here

and there always found some few believers, and which in these last days everywhere is winningmany to receive itI mean the truth, or hope, as some are content to call it, of the final salvation

or restitution of allwas brought before the readers of this REVIEW, in an article by ProfessorMayor, with words, not of suspicion or condemnation, but of sympathy and commendation. And

the testimony of oneI may say at once my own testimonywho, in opposition to the currentopinion of the professing Church, had shown that Scripture, spite of apparent passages to the

contrary, taught that the love and purpose of God, far wider and deeper than many even of Hismost loving children had thought possible, would not cease to work for the recovery of the lost,

until all should be found and restored to Him from whom they had been beguiled or fallen, wasrecommended in these pages to the attention of the Church and world. Since then, in four

consecutive numbers of this REVIEW (Contemporary Review for Jan., Feb., March, and April,1876), the same hope or truth of final restoration has been vehemently assailed, and again put

upon its trial; the testimony of those who hold this hope, especially of the writer of the presentpaper, accused of error and irrelevancy; and the contrary doctrine of endless perdition argued at

length with skill and learning by one, Mr. H. N. Oxenham, who has already and deservedly madehimself a place in the literary world. Little does the critic seem aware, that while he thus

becomes both witness and judge, and declares and decides that this or that is truth, and this nottruth, he is really being tried himself by what appears to be on trial, and, like the judges of the

Truth of old, is showing by his treatment of that which is before him exactly where and what heis. Few remember this eternal law, that our views of any object absolutely and necessarily

depend upon our state or standpoint, that is, on what and where we are, and upon the measure oflight or darkness which we have to see by; and conversely, that by our views we may learn

where we really are, like the mariners in mid ocean, by our observations discovering our true


3/22

position; that whether it is of nature, in any of her varied kingdoms, or of Scripture, or of Godand of His Christ, or future judgment, or of the things of this life, as to what is pleasure, gain, or

honour, the view which each has tells us his state, that is, where he really is. If men can believeanother, though their views differ, their creed may be one; for our belief on any question may be

beyond our view, and may confess some truth, which may either be wholly unseen, or of which

our first very differing views are but the partial apprehensions. But if we will each only believeso much of any fact or truth as we can see, our view must not only depend on, but also showexactly, where we are. Mr. Oxenham, by his views of future judgment, shows us where he is,

while at the same time it is no less true that where he now is accounts for and explains many ofhis views.

But a man may say, "I get my views from the Church, or from the Bible, or from the Creeds, and

these cannot be wrong." I answer, How much do you understand the Church, or the Bible, or theCreeds? The Church may speak the truth, and not only may you wholly misinterpret and

misapply her true testimony, but she herself, because she is God's witness, may like Caiaphasutter words, as when he said, "It is expedient that one man die for the people," of the true sense

of which she may herself be quite ignorant. How often in teaching the young are we made to feelthat, even with the truest words, we can make them see only just so far as they have learned to

see. Whether it is in Greek or mathematics, something more is needed than true teachingeventhe power to receive and digest what is communicated. And how often, as he advances, does the

teacher himself learn, that, even while he has been teaching truth, the truth has been far widerand deeper, and even other, than he has at the time conceived it. If I err not, it is so with all the

Church's teaching. How much is there in the order of the Christian Year far beyond the thoughtof the Church herself, which ordained and arranged this order? She had her own thought, for

instance, in the appointment of All Souls' Day; but God through her by the same day may havebeen bearing a far wider and still more blessed testimony. This is true too of the Creeds, which

not only may confess far more than the Church's children apprehend, but confess it for reasons,and in relation to matters, which as yet they have not thought of. Why, for instance, is the Church

an article of faith, as in the words, "I believe one Catholic and Apostolic Church," when "faith isthe substance of things hoped for, the evidence or conviction of things unseen?" Or why in the

Creeds is the Church linked, not with Christ, whose body she is, but rather with the Holy Ghost?or why, again, is she linked with the forgiveness of sins, as when we say, "I believe in the Holy

Catholic Church, the forgiveness of sins?" Is it only because she is herself forgiven, or becausealso she is God's appointed instrument and means for others' forgiveness? And, again, how far

does our view of this "forgiveness and remission of sins," or of the "one baptism," through whichit is effected, exhaust the great mystery? The answer each may make to these questions will give

his view; but does this view measure or fathom the depth which is here spoken of? And so ofHoly Scripture, how much do we see of its meaning? Should we without an apostle's help have

seen the two covenants, law and gospel, in Hagar and Sarah? Or how many would have detectedwhat the Epistle to the Hebrews tells us is intended by the omission of father and mother in

Melchizedek's history? The eye only sees what it has learnt, and brings with it power, to see. It isnot enough to have a revelation before us. We need eyes and heart to read that revelation. Do

what you will before a babe, it does not see it. A man may say, "I take my view of the sun'srising from what I see." The question is how much he really sees. What a lesson it is that this

sun-rising, perhaps the grandest and clearest of all natural phenomena, is not the truth, but onlyan appearance of it. In every department of knowledge, therefore, that which marks the man is


4/22


5/22

doing of their own. They are not surprised, therefore, to see the same apparent contradiction inthat Book which the Church accepts as a revelation, on the testimony of which so many base

their belief in endless punishment. For they have learnt, by their own experience, how while theyare themselves under the first covenant, which only works death, and wrath, and condemnation,

they cannot credit God with the "thoughts of peace" He has towards us, but are through fear of

death all their lifetime subject to bondage. But having themselves passed from under that cloudinto the ministry of light and life, and learnt what the death and judgment have done for them,they see what this same judgment may do for others also, and that the cloud, though dark, is

really big with blessings.

What then does Scripture say as to the final destiny of man? Its testimony appears at first sightcontradictory. It speaks of "few finding the way of life," and yet, "in Christ of all being made

alive," of God's elect being only "a little flock," and yet of "all the kindreds of the earth beingblest in Abraham's seed;" of "mercy upon all," and yet of "everlasting or eternal punishment;" of

the "restitution of all things," and yet also of "eternal destruction;" of the "wrath of God for everand ever," and yet of "all things reconciled to Him;" of "eternal fire prepared for the devil and his

angels," and yet of the "destruction through death, not of the works of the devil only, but of himwho has the power of death, that is, the devil;" of the "second death, and the lake which burneth

with fire," and yet of "no more death or curse," but "all things subdued by Christ," and "God allin all." Is not this apparent contradiction? What can it really mean? Is there any key, and if so,

what is it, to this mystery?

To this, the short and easy answer of some is that the Book contradicts itself, and so betrays itspurely earthly origin. But the common reply of believers, which Mr. Oxenham approves, is that

these opposing words only mean that some are saved and some are lost for ever; the simpleobjection to which is, that, in asserting one side of Scripture, this explanation not only ignores

and denies the testimony upon the other side, but represents God in a character absolutelyopposed to that in which the Gospel exhibits Him. Can this then be the true solution of the

riddle? Is this indeed the glad tidings of great joy to all people? Is it not rather a misapprehensionarising out of some mystery connected with the method of our redemption? I have endeavoured

elsewhere (see "Restitution of all Things," pp. 27-95) to show that the truth which solves theriddle is to be found in those same Scriptures which seem to raise the difficulty, and lies in the

mystery of the will of our ever-blessed God as to the process and stages of redemption; first, Hiswill by some to bless and save others; by a first-born seed, "the first-born from the dead," the

elect of this and other ages, to save and bless the later-born; secondly, His will therefore to workout the redemption of the lost by successive "ages" or dispensations, or, to use the language of

St. Paul, "according to the purpose of the ages" (Eph. 3:11; ,translated, in our Authorized Version, "the eternal purpose"); and lastly, His will (thus meetingthe nature of our fall) to make death, judgment, and destruction, the means and way to life,

acquittal, and salvation; in other words, "through death to destroy him that has the power ofdeath, that is, the devil, and to deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime

subject to bondage."

To go into all this would be impossible here. I say nothing therefore of the light which is thrownupon this question by seeing that the "first-born" or "elect," so far from being, as some have

thought, the only saved, are but first-born and elect, like Christ their Head, to be the means to


6/22

save and serve others, and have a relation to the whole creation, which shall be saved in theappointed time by the first-born seed, that is, by Christ and His body, through those appointed

baptisms, whether of fire or water, which are required to bring about the "restitution of allthings;" the first-born or first-fruits being elect to be priests and rulers to the later-born, and a

pledge, as St. Paul declares, that "if the first-fruits be holy, the lump shall also be holy." Nor can

I show here how this blessed and promised consummation can and will be accomplished onlythrough those so-called eternal or "aeonial" times (the , or of 1 Cor.2:7; Eph. 2:4-7; 3:11, 21; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 1:2, &c.), figured by the "times" and the "times of

times" of the old Jewish dispensation, which, like the days of Creation, are the periods duringwhich the Divine Word is working, to bring a ruined world, which is without form and void, with

darkness on its face, to bear again the image of God and to be all very good. But I may say thatthese aeonial or age times are the key to unlock all that is hid under that word which our version

translates "eternal" or "everlasting," but which really is "of the ages," and refers always to thetimes during which the present fall, for Scripture asserts a fall, is being remedied.

I must, however, for a moment dwell on the other truth to which I have referred, namely, that

death, condemnation, and destruction, are for sinners the one only possible way to life, acquittal,and salvation; because to most this is the great difficulty, which, till they have themselves passed

through the process, seems utterly perplexing and incredible, while yet it solves the great riddle.This, the lesson of the Cross, is yet not understood by many who in word confess that the Cross

and it alone saves them. They do not see that to be quickened we must die, and that death andjudgment are the way to life and blessedness. For fallen man there is indeed no other way. For

the one only way out of any world, in which we are or may be, is by a death to it, even as theonly way into any world is by birth into it. We have by the serpent's lie not only had our true life

poisoned, and so, by losing the life of heaven, have been unable to remain and live in Paradise,for we cannot live in any world without the life of it,but we have also to our sorrow had

another life quickened in us by the same false word, which, while it poisoned the heavenly life,quickened another which was its very opposite; and, having now the fallen life, we have come in

spirit into another spirit-world, of self-love and envy, pride and wrath, altogether unlike that forwhich we were created; and being in this dark world, the only way out of it is by dying to it. But

the mere death of the body, which is only the end of our natural animal life, is not necessarily thedeath or end of that fallen life in which our spirit lives. the first-born or elect indeed, by receiving

the Divine Word, which slays the hellish life within and quickens the heavenly, have even whilehere in this earthly life, through the loving chastenings and sorrows which God sends, died to

and so come clear out of the dark world, "delivered," as St. Paul says, by death with Christ,"from the power of darkness and translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son." But those still

living the selfish life have not so died. At death, that is, the death of the body, they are still inspirit within the sphere, and under the power, of that dark world whose life they live. How are

they to be delivered from it? There is but one way, death; not the first, for that is passed, but thesecond, even that death to the hellish life, which is accomplished by the Word, which kills to

make alive. Therefore has God promised a "second death," that those who have not here died tosin and hell may through God's loving judgment do so at last; His judgment for them, even as for

His first-born and elect, being the appointed way of their deliverance.

I do not, however, suppose that any statement of this truth can make it clear to all, much less that

so bald and imperfect a sketch as that here given can free the subject from the mists with which it


7/22

is surrounded. I rather refer to these points as illustrating the character of the criticism which hasappeared in the recent numbers of this REVIEW from the pen of Mr. Oxenham. While the book he

criticizes calls special attention to the fact that the texts of Scripture, on which the doctrine ofeternal punishment is based, present only one side of the testimony of Holy Scripture, and that to

settle the matter in this way, not only ignores half the Bible, but wholly overlooks all that is

taught as to the method of our salvation by death, and also represents or misrepresents God bysetting Him before us in a character opposed to the whole spirit of the Gospel, in Mr. Oxenham'sarticles on the subject there is no attempt to explain all this, which confessedly lies at the very

foundation of the inquiry. One might read all that he says, and never be aware that the book, onthe authority of which the doctrine of endless punishment is asserted, has on the very face of it

this great and manifest difficulty. Only imagine the book of Nature being studied in this way;with one class of facts systematically ignored; with one law, say of gravitation, fully laid down,

while the opposite law, of centrifugal motion, was altogether overlooked; what results in sciencecould follow from such a method? Yet this is the way in which not a few yet read the Scriptures,

taking their first partial sense-readings for the truth, and shutting their eyes to all that the sameScripture testifies upon the other side.

But the articles which Mr. Oxenham has given us are "from a Roman Catholic point of view;"

(Note: Mr. Oxenham, in the reprint of his papers, objects to these words "from a Roman Catholicpoint of view," which were part of the title under which his essay originally appeared in the

Contemporary Review. But no one, I think, except Mr. Oxenham himself, can read his paperswithout observing throughout the plainest marks of the writer's position, though he himself be

quite unconscious that it is so.) and possibly "a Roman Catholic point of view" does not permitone to see the whole question. There are points of view from which but little can be seen. What

Mr. Oxenham sees, however, has its value, as helping us to gauge the gain or loss of looking atthis question, as he does, from a Roman Catholic standpoint. Has this "point of view" helped

him? An examination of his views, which, if not altogether the result of his position, yet witnesswhere he is, may throw some light on this matter.

Beginning, then, with an allusion to the spread and "extreme novelty, at all events in this

country, as maintained by men professing to accept the Bible," (p. 223,) of what he calls"Universalism," which, he tells us, "disorganizes the entire structure of Christian doctrine," (p.

227,) Mr. Oxenham proceeds, after a few words as to that which he thinks "lies at the root ofmost of the angry reclamation," to "the leading causes which help to account for the modern

spirit of antagonism to this doctrine of eternal punishment." These, according to Mr. Oxenham,are two, (p. 229,)first, the popular opinions and fancies as to the nature of this eternal

punishment, in the case of unbaptized infants and the heathen, and as to the comparative numberof the saved or lost; and secondly, the neglect or denial of the doctrine of Purgatory and prayerfor the dead. This is the substance of his first paper. Let us suppose all this correct. What does it

prove as to the truth or untruth of endless punishment or universal restitution? But so far frombeing correct, these statements, except the one as to the spread of unbelief in endless torment, are

all misleading, and indeed erroneous. For, first, is the doctrine of universal restitution an"extreme novelty?" Gieseler's statement (and there is no higher authority) is that "the opinion of

the indestructible capacity for reformation in all rational creatures, and the finiteness of thetorments of hell, was so common even in the West, and so widely diffused among opponents of

Origen," (he is speaking ofA.D. 324 to 451,) "that though it might not have sprung up without


8/22

the influence of his school, yet it had become quite independent of it." (Note: "Eccl. Hist.," vol. i. 82.) Jerome's words too, which I shall again notice, as to the texts of Scripture upon which

some in his day rested their hope that all "punishment would one day come to an end," (Note: Atthe end of his Commentary on Isaiah, lib. xviii. in cap. lxvi.) and Augustine's reference to the

"very many (imo quam plurimi) who, though not denying the Holy Scripture, do not believe in

endless torments," (Note: "Enchirid. ad Laurent.," c. 29.) and the well-known passage in his"City of God," respecting those whom he calls nostri misericordes, who are "unwilling to believethat endless punishment will be inflicted," (Note: "De Civ. Dei," lib. xxi. c. 17.) not to speak of

other proofs, show how entirely contrary to fact Mr. Oxenham's statement is as to the "extremenovelty" of this doctrine. Is then this doctrine "an extreme novelty, at all events in this country,

as maintained by persons professing to accept the Bible?" Has Mr. Oxenham never heard ofJeremiah White, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and chaplain to Oliver Cromwell (author

of the "Restitution of all Things"); or of Peter Sterry, another distinguished Puritan of the sameperiod (author of the "Rise, Race, and Royalty of the Kingdom of God," and the "Revelation of

the Everlasting Gospel Message"); or of George Rust, chaplain to Jeremy Taylor, and Dean ofConnor (author of "Letter of Resolution concerning Origen," printed 1661); or of the famous Dr.

Henry More, Fellow of Christ's College, Cambridge, one of the greatest scholars of his day(author of "Divine Dialogues," in Two Parts, printed 1688); or of the non-juror William Law,

author of the "Serious Call," to whom, perhaps more than to any other, under God, England owesthe revival of religion in the last century, whose "Address to the Clergy" is full of this doctrine;

or of George Stonehouse, Vicar of Islington, a hundred years ago (author of "UniversalRestitution a Scripture Doctrine," printed 1761); or of Richard Clarke, Curate of Cheshunt about

the same time (author of the "Gospel of the Daily Service of the Law," printed 1767); or of Dr.Newton, Bishop of Bristol (author of a Dissertation "On the Final State and Condition of Men,"

in his Works, vol. iii. p. 702, 1782); or of Dr. Thomas Burnet, Master of the Charter House(author of "De Statu Mortuorum et Resurgentium," 1715); or of the Chevalier Ramsay (author of

the "Philosophical Principles of Natural and Revealed Religion," 1749), with many others nowforgotten; all of whom bore their unfaltering testimony to this truth of restitution, and whose

works, though now little known, still remain to witness how clear and persistent has been thetestimony on this subject?

And as to Mr. Oxenham's assertionfor it is but an assertionthat "Universalism disorganizes

the entire structure of Christian doctrine," (p. 227,) is not the fact exactly the reverse? Theobjection only proves the confusion of thought which passes current for sound doctrine, and how

little the nature of the fall, and the redemption by Christ, are really understood. What theScripture teaches is, that man by disobedience and a death to God fell from God under the power

of death and darkness, where by nature he is for ever lost, as unable to quicken his soul as toraise again his dead body; that in this fall God pitied him, and sent His Son, in whom is life, to be

a man in the place where man was shut up, there to raise up again God's life in man, to bearman's curse, and then through death to bring man back in God's life to God's right hand; that in

His own person, Christ, the first of all the first-fruits, as man in the life of God, broke through thegates of death and hell; that those who receive Him now through Him obtain the life by which

they also shall rise as "first-fruits of His creatures;" that "if the first-fruits be holy, the lump isalso holy," and that therefore "in Christ shall all be made alive." Is not Sir James Stephen

therefore quite right in saying that the dogma of eternal punishment is at best "a mere isolatedtruth, standing in no necessary connection with the rest," (p. 227,) but practically contradicting


9/22

all that the Gospel tells us of Christ's work, and God's character? For if God is indeed love, andwills that all men should be saved, and doeth according to His will in the armies of heaven, and

among the inhabitants of the earth; if Christ indeed died for all, as "the Lamb of God whichtaketh away the sin of the world;" the difficulty is to conceive how this can consist with any

being for ever lost to God, or how Christian doctrine can be complete without some such

conclusion as universal restitution. But here as elsewhere we only see what we have learned tosee.

As to the supposed causes of the present unbelief in endless punishment, namely, first, the "idolafori," or "popular opinions and fancies as to the place and exact nature of this eternal

punishment," as examples of which Mr. Oxenham cites Calvin's statement respecting "babes aspan long crawling about the floor of hell," (p. 229,) and the notion that the number of the lost

will far exceed that of the saved, (p. 330;) and secondly, the neglect or denial by Protestants ofthe doctrine of purgatory and prayer for the dead, (p. 234;) does Mr. Oxenham really believe that

these are the true causes either of the spread of the doctrine of universal restitution, or of therepugnance to the idea of never-ending torments? Is not the true cause this rather, that men

instinctively feel that the doctrine of everlasting sufferingnot the "popular opinions or fancies"about it, as Mr. Oxenham suggests, but the doctrine itself as stated by the most learned of its

supporters, such as Augustine, Jerome, or Dr. Puseydirectly contradicts what the Gospelreveals of God, and further is in direct opposition to certain portions of Holy Scripture, which,

while in some places it threatens "aeonial punishment" ( ), whatever this maybe, most distinctly affirms the "restitution of all things" and the "reconciliation of all" (Acts 3:21;

Col. 1:20)? Can Mr. Oxenham really think that Origen, and Gregory of Nyssa, and all that largebody of believers, of whom Jerome and Augustine wrote, who "though not denying Holy

Scripture do not believe in endless torments," but "believe that after certain periods of time thosewho are condemned to the pains of hell shall be delivered out of that state," were led to their

rejection of this doctrine of never-ending sufferings either by the "idola fori" which Mr.Oxenham speaks of, such as Calvin's "span-long babes crawling about the floor of hell," or by

any Protestant denial or doubt as to a purification by fire to be accomplished after death, or thepropriety of prayer for the departed? Did they not all hold both prayer for the dead and a

purification by fire after death, and yet with this, and because of this, believe in restitution,simply because Scripture distinctly taught that at last "God should be all in all," and would

"reconcile all," and "have mercy upon all" (1 Cor. 15:28; Col. 1:20; Rom. 11:32)? It is this sametestimony of Scripture, which has forced thousands in this day, slowly and in spite of all their

early training, to give up the doctrine of everlasting suffering. They do not, as Mr. Oxenhamsays, reject the doctrine of endless punishment "because of its difficulties, which to them appear

inexplicable," (pp. 432, 433,) but because they believe that it is utterly irreconcilable with therevelation given by God Himself.

Nor will the Protestant denial of purgatory, any more than the other opinions which Mr.Oxenham refers to, account for the widespread unbelief in endless torments. The truth upon this

point rather is, that the doctrine of Purgatory, properly so called, which gradually grew up fromthe fifth to the seventh century, (Note: Hagenbach, after describing the earlier doctrine as to

cleansing fire, says that "Gregory the Great may rightly be called the 'inventor of the doctrine ofpurgatory,' if we may call it an invention.""Hist. of Doctrines," vol. i. 141, p. 407.) in

contradistinction to the earlier view of purifying fire held by Clement of Alexandria, Origen,


10/22

Ambrose, and others, (Note: See Hagenbach, "Hist. of Doctrines," vol. i. 77, pp. 235-237.) wasitself a natural result of the efforts of Augustine and others to silence the doctrine of restitution.

The doctrine of a purifying fire runs, I believe, all through the Scriptures. Not only do theprophets speak of that "spirit of judgment and burning with which the Lord shall purge away the

filth of the daughters of Zion, and cleanse the blood of Jerusalem;" the fulfilment of the vision of

the "burning bush," which burnt and was not consumed because God dwelt in it; but both St.Peter and St. Paul speak of the "fiery trial which must try us," the "fire which must try everyman's work," even that of believers, while "they themselves shall be saved, yet so as by fire."

Our Lord Himself too speaks of the "fire which He came to cast into the earth," that "baptism ofthe Holy Ghost and fire," without which no fallen creature can be perfected. For "our God is a

consuming fire," and to dwell in Him we must have a life, which, because it is of the fire (for fireburns not fire) can stand unharmed in it. The believer, therefore, like the material world, must not

only go through that baptism, which "is as the waters of Noah," but that other baptism of firealso, by which alone the final transmutation of the creature from corruptible to incorruptible can

be effected. The early Fathers too have the same doctrine of "cleansing fire," (Note: The of Origen, Contr. Cels. v. 15, called by Clement of Alexandria ,

Strom. vii. 6, and , Cohort. 47. I believe the expression, "ignis sapiens,"which we find in Tertullian, Jerome, and others, originally was used in reference to the same

cleansing.) which should sooner or later try and perfect all, through which even the BlessedVirgin and Peter and the much-loved John would all have to pass, if they would be conformed to

Christ; a fire which, whether in this present life or at the judgment, must, because God loves us,perform its work. But when instead of this, as time went on, and carnal conceptions grew in the

Church, the doctrine of endless punishment was taught by many of the greatest Church teachers,there followed with it as a necessary result the Roman view of purgatory, giving men some hope

for those loved ones, who, if not fit for heaven, could not be believed worthy of an everlastinghell. But on the change from the early doctrine of a cleansing fire to that of endless torments, and

purgatory, properly so called, I cannot enter further here.

And here, in passing, a word as to Mr. Oxenham's view of the eternal perdition of unbaptizedinfants. These children, he tells us, "are indeed 'damned,' in the sense that they cannot attain to

the Beatific Vision. ... But it is no conscious loss to them. Still less does it imply any suffering ofbody or soul. On the contrary, it is consistent with the highest enjoyment of natural beatitude and

with a natural knowledge and love of God. They are in what would have been Adam's conditionif he had neither fallen into sin nor been endowed with original justice. Balmez thinks this

principle may be extended to the case of adults, especially in heathen nations, who die with theirmoral and intellectual faculties so imperfectly developed that they may be regarded as, in

responsibility, children." (p. 230.) Eternal perdition, therefore, does not imply "any suffering ofbody or soul," but, "on the contrary, is consistent with the highest enjoyment of natural beatitude

and with a natural knowledge and love of God, in what would have been Adam's condition if hehad not fallen into sin." (Note: How widely different this doctrine is from that generally set forth

for Roman Catholics may be seen by consulting a pamphlet, entitled "Hell opened to Christians,from the Italian of the Rev. F. Pinamonte, S.J.," illustrated with woodcuts, portraying the tortures

of the damned, published by James Duffy, Wellington Quay, Dublin, and Paternoster Row,London.) Let us suppose for a moment that this explanation of Mr. Oxenham's is satisfactory. It

is still open to one objection, namely, that it contradicts, and if it is true overthrows, all that hesays a little lower down on the words and . For, he tells us, "conveys


11/22

the full idea of everlasting," and is not a "corrective chastisement," but torment. (pp.725, 726.) But all the lost suffer this : unbaptized children and the heathen are

lost: so while they are in "eternal chastisement" or "punishment," with "quenchless fire, and theundying worm,"for Mr. Oxenham tells us that the expression is "strictly

synonymous" with this, (p. 726,)they yet are not only without "any suffering of body or soul,"

but on the contrary in the "highest enjoyment of natural beatitude and with a natural knowledgeand love of God." But even this does not agree with what he again tells us further on "is meantby the dogma of eternal damnation: it means in one word leaving the sinner to himself." (p. 433.)

Where, I ask, does it mean this? Does it mean it in the words just quoted, as to "quenchless fire,"and the "undying worm," and the "shut door," and "many stripes." Certainly it does not mean this

in the Fathers, as countless passages from Augustine and Jerome would prove. And all this isadvanced by a writer who objects to Universalism because it does such violence to the language

of Holy Scripture.

As to the other alleged "misapprehension," "which," Mr. Oxenham tells us, "has probably donemore than all other misconceptions put together to prejudice men's minds against the doctrine" of

endless punishment, (p. 230,) viz., that more are lost than saved, his reply is that this opinion,though "widely held," "has not, as far as he is aware, ever found place in the creed of any

Christian community, and certainly neither does, nor possibly could, appertain to the doctrine ofthe Catholic Church;" (p. 231;) while "Lacordaire, who has devoted a volume of his

'Conferences,' 'on the Results of the Divine Government,' to an elaborate and minute examinationof the subject, (Note: This is scarcely correct. Lacordaire has not"devoted a volume of his

'Conferences,'" but simply one single "Conference" (the 71st) to this "examination." It is worthreading, if one wishes to disagree with the Abbe's conclusions, as is also the next, (the 72nd,)

which attempts to prove on philosophical grounds the endlessness of misery.) comes to theconclusion that the great majority of mankind will be saved." (p. 234.) Yet, when this selfsame

argument is applied to the question of eternal death, for certainly no creed or canon of theChurch received by East and West declares it, Mr. Oxenham's reply is that "the belief of the

Church is not to be collected solely from creeds and definitions of Councils." (p. 617.) Theomission, therefore, of an opinion or doctrine in the Creed has a bearing on the question of the

comparative number of the saved or lost, but no bearing whatever on the question of everlastingwoe. Meanwhile the apparent evidence of Scripture is perfectly overwhelming as to the fact that

the many shall be lost and only the few saved; while "the immemorial belief of the Church," (p.222,) which Mr. Oxenham so often appeals to, is in the same direction, the greatest authorities

having laid it down as unquestionable that the vast majority of men will certainly be damned.(Note: See Corn. a Lapide, in Num. 14:30, and Apoc. 7:9.) That this teaching of Scripture asserts

that the majority are lost for ever is, as I have endeavoured to show elsewhere, simply amisapprehension of its meaning; the truth being rather that the few who find the narrow way are

the "first-born" or "first-fruits," the elect seed, in whom all the kindreds of the earth shall one daybe blessed; while the many who are lost are those whom I may call the later-born, who are only

brought back to God by the ministry of the elect through the judgment of the coming age or ages.(Note: The "Quicunque Vult" is twice referred to by Mr. Oxenham, (pp. 225 and 620,) as if it

settled the question; but even granting this "Psalm" to be a Creed, which strictly speaking it isnot, the passage referred to, as to "the wicked going into everlasting fire," simply repeats the

words of Scripture, without explaining them, the question still remaining, as to what Scripturemeans by this language.) Mr. Oxenham does not, however, receive this explanation, but spite of


12/22

the well-known words, "The wicked (not a few of the most wicked) shall be turned into hell, andall the nations that forget God," and "strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leadeth unto

life, and few there be that find it,"plain words spoken by the blessed Lord Himself,stillargues that because this doctrine has not been asserted in any Church Creed or General Council,

it is to be regarded "as a mere opinion, and has no shadow of claim to be considered part of the

revealed faith." (p. 231.) Only imagine if the question, instead of touching the nature andduration of future punishment, were as to the comparative number of the saved or lost, how thosewho contend that the many will be damned might point triumphantly to such texts as those just

quoted, and ask, Can anything be plainer than such statements of Holy Writ? Yet in the teeth ofthese plain statements, and though he quotes and endorses Hooker's opinion, "that where a literal

interpretation [of Scripture] will stand, the furthest from the letter is commonly the worst," (p.627,) Mr. Oxenham nevertheless believes that the majority of mankind will be saved, (pp. 231,

234,) and that the opposite view is "a mere opinion which has no shadow of claim to beconsidered part of the revealed faith." And this is the deliberate couclusion of one who contends

for taking the plain meaning of our Lord's own words.

I will not here examine all that Mr. Oxenham urges on the ground of Reason as to theimprobability of universal restitution or the probability of a never-ending hell, (pp. 425, 426,) for

this question has been discussed by Professor Mayor in the May number of this REVIEW, and myobject is to consider, not so much what sense or reason say, but rather what Scripture is supposed

to say, on this question. Nor do I care to follow Mr. Oxenham into the views of the ancientheathen world, (pp. 234, 235, and 616, seq.,) interesting as these are on this question as showing

man's natural thoughts of God and of himself without revelation, because Christ's resurrection,for those who believe it, and I write for such, has since the days of Greece and Rome thrown new

light upon man's lot, proving that the dead and cursedfor Christ was dead and cursed for usspite of the curse and death, may be and have been raised again to highest heaven. This truth,

with other secrets of God's purpose to the world, which, as the Apostle says, were "hid from theages and generations" which Mr. Oxenham speaks of, when men felt after an unknown God,

uncertain whether He were for them or against them, or how the sins which they were consciousof could ever be removed, has been unlocked, for some of us at least, by the appearing of the

Lord, who "hath abolished death and brought life and immortality to light by the Gospel." Andfor us, with all the light which shines from Christ's appearing, to rise no higher in our hopes or

views than those upon whose conscience the cloud of God's just judgment weighed in the daysbefore the spirit of sonship descended upon men, seems to me as shameful as for much-loved

sons always to cower as slaves, or for men at noonday to have the fears of children in the dark.

I pass on therefore to Mr. Oxenham's assertion respecting the Councils and Fathers, and theteaching of Holy Writ, on this subject. I am guilty, so he asserts, of "special pleading" about theFifth Council, (p. 622,) and my quotations from the Fathers, "imposing as the array may at first

sight appear," are either "inconclusive," "misapplied," or "mistranslated." (p. 622.) Now, as Mr.Matthew Arnold says, "an Englishman has such a respect for fact himself that he can hardly

imagine grave people presenting him with anything as fact, when they have absolutely no rightwhatever to do so." Mr. Oxenham's assertions, therefore, if unchallenged, may be received for

truth. In justice to the truth, therefore, I am obliged to follow him into the facts referred to, aswell as into his criticisms on those passages of the Fathers (and he only attempts to shake the

evidence of very few) which he asserts do not bear on this question. To some readers perhaps


13/22

this part of the subject may seem unimportant. For others I know it will have very specialinterest.

As to the facts, then, I had asked where and when the Catholic Church had ever authoritatively

condemned this view of restitution? At what Council, or in what decrees, received by East and

West, were we to find the record and the terms of this condemnation? I knew, of course, andstated, that Theophilus of Alexandria, the persecutor of Chrysostom, and then Anastasius ofRome, who, according his own confession, until called upon to judge Origen, knew little or

nothing about him, and later on the bishops at the Home Synod under Mennas at Constantinople,the latter acting under court influence, two hundred years after his death, had condemned Origen.

But there was no evidence, that I was aware of, to show that the doctrine of restitution had everbeen condemned, at least by any General Council; while on the other hand several of the leading

Fathers distinctly held that all men would at last be saved. ("Restitution of All Things," pp. 96,97.) This was my "special pleading." What is Mr. Oxenham's reply? He cites against me all the

facts I had conceded as to Origen's condemnation by certain local bishops; only adding asanother fact, what is still open to the gravest doubt, and denied by some of the greatest

authorities on Church Councils, (Note: Walch, perhaps the greatest of all authorities on ChurchCouncils, after sifting the evidence on both sides most fully, decides that Origen's name in this

eleventh Canon of the Fifth Council is an interpolation."Ketzerhistorie," vol. viii. pp. 284-290.The facts which he cites as proofs of this are, I think, unanswerable.) that the eleventh canon of

the Fifth Council also names Origen with others who had been condemned, and that this canonwas confirmed by the Sixth and Seventh Councils. (p. 621.) Let us accept all this as fact, (though

in the canon, even as cited by Mr. Oxenham, there is not the slightest reference to any ofOrigen's views,) how does all this prove in any way that the doctrine of restitution ever was

condemned? As showing the truth upon this point, let us look at the Acts of the Home Synodunder Mennas, which, as I had conceded, without doubt condemned Origen. But for what did it

condemn him? Not for the hope of restitution. On the contrary, though the Emperor sent a list ofOrigen's opinions to the Council, including among others in his ninth article the doctrine of

restitution, with a letter requiring them diligently to read his "exposition" of Origen's errors, andthen to "condemn each one of them," the Council, while they enumerated with careful

minuteness Origen's heretical opinions, would not and did not condemn the doctrine ofrestitution. To this one point, spite of Justinian's express desire that they should condemn it, they

make no allusion whatever in any one of the fifteen canons which they then passed. All this mustbe known by Mr. Oxenham, even if the original documents have never been examined by him,

for the whole subject has so recently been brought under our notice by one of whom, or of whosework, Mr. Oxenham can hardly be ignorant; (Note: I refer to the Rev. F. N. Oxenham's "Letter to

Mr. Gladstone," entitled "Everlasting Punishment; is the Doctrine de fide?" (Rivingtons) pp. 17-25, where all the facts of Origen's condem ... [Editor's note: the rest of this footnote is missing on

the photocopies I have of this publication].) yet spite of this he quotes the condemnation ofOrigen under Mennas as a proof of the condemnation of the doctrine of restitution, when he

knows, or should know, that this Council, while condemning Origen's errors, did not condemnthe doctrine of restitution.

The fact is that this doctrine, though held by Origen, as by many others of the early Fathers, wasnot the error which then went by the name of Origenism, which rather referred to certain

speculations as to the form or formlessness of God, the subordination of the Son, the nature of


14/22


15/22

those who cannot read the originals it may suffice to say that Jeremy Taylor, in his famoussermon on "Christ's Advent to Judgment," quotes both the passages referred to in the sense I

have assigned to them, as proving that "Origen was not the first that said the pains of the damnedshould cease." (Note: Jeremy Taylor's "Works," vol. v. serm. 3. Spite of this Mr. Oxenham says,

that "that theory [of annihilation] was first broached among persons not professing to be atheists

in the nineteenth century." (p. 621.)) As to the two Gregorys, of Nyssa and Nazianzus, Mr.Oxenham is content to say, that "it is well known that they sometimes speak doubtfully on thisdoctrine; but, on the other hand, they elsewhere most unequivocally assert it." (p. 623.) Now

their "most unequivocal assertion" amounts to this, that in the passages referred to by Mr.Oxenham, which occur in their popular writings, they, like Origen in similar writings, use the

common language on the subject; (Note: The passage from Gregory of Nazianzus occurs in hisfifteenth sermon, on "the plague of hail." The lesson is that it is better to repent now than

hereafter. The sermon is just a parallel to so many passages of Scripture, which urge sinners torepent for fear of God's wrath. The passage from Gregory of Nyssa, in his sermon "concerning

those who put off baptism," (p. 219, Edit. Grets.) says that there is hope for the baptized; but ofthe unbaptized, that "salvation is denied by a definite prohibition." He refers to the words, "He

that believeth not shall be damned." The contradiction here, if it is a contradiction, to their otherstatements, is only apparent like that in Scripture.) while, instead of "sometimes speaking

doubtfully on this doctrine," Gregory of Nyssa wrote plainly and strongly in favour of restitution,and Gregory of Nazianzus more than once gives hints to show that he too received the same

doctrine. Neander's testimony upon this point of fact, which is beyond all question, is asfollows:"But this particular doctrine [of Restoration] was expounded and maintained with the

greatest ability in works written expressly for that purpose by Gregory of Nyssa. God, hemaintained, had created rational beings in order that they might be self-conscious and free

vessels for the communications of the original fountain of all good. All punishments are meansof purification, ordained by divine love to purge rational beings from moral evil, and to restore

them to that communion with God which corresponds to their nature. God would not havepermitted the existence of evil, unless He had foreseen that by the redemption all rational beings

would in the end, according to their destination, attain to the same blessed fellowship withHimself." (Note: Neander, "Church Hist.," vol. iv. p. 455.)

Now when it is borne in mind that Gregory of Nazianzus presided at the Second General

Council, and that to Gregory of Nyssa tradition ascribes all those additions to the original NiceneCreed, which were made at the same Second General Council, and which we now recite as

portions of it, (Note: Nicephor, "Eccl. Hist.," lib. xii. c. 13.)when we remember the esteem inwhich the name and works of this same Gregory of Nyssa have ever been held, both during his

life and since his death, and that he was referred to both by the Fifth and Seventh GeneralCouncils, as amongst the highest authorities of the Church, (Editor's note: an illegible footnote

occurs here.)we shall be better able to judge the worth of the assertion, which is sometimesmade, that the doctrine of final restitution is, as Mr. Oxenham asserts, "a heresy."

On this point therefore I will only add, that by the same process as that which Mr. Oxenhamadopts in reference to the testimony of Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Gregory

of Nyssa, and the others whom I have quoted, it might be proved, and an attempt has actuallybeen made to prove, that even Origen never held the doctrines usually and rightly attributed to

him, but only spoke according to the so-called Catholic dogma. I have now before me a work,


16/22

published in Rome in 1864, by Professor Vincenzi of the College there commonly called theSapienza,which the author tells us was graciously received by the Pope himself, with the

words "Sarebbe un gran bene se si potesse ridonare la fama ad un tant' uomo,"the whole driftof which is to prove that Origen never held what his words most distinctly prove he did hold.

(Note: This work, by Vincenzi, is in four octavo volumes: the title of the first is, "Gregorii

Nysseni et Origenis de aeternitate poenarum in vita futura omnimodo cum dogmate catholicoconcordia;" of the second, "Origenes ab haereseos nota in caeteris institutionibus vindicatus;" ofthe third, "Historia critica quaestionis inter Theophilum et Hieronymum, adversarios Origenis, et

Origenis patronos, Johannem Chrysostomum et monachos Nitrenses;" of the fourth, "VigiliiPapae et Origenis triumphus in Synodo Quinta Oecumenica.") Vincenzi's argument, perhaps I

should say his assertion (which is that of Mr. Oxenham here respecting Gregory of Nyssa) is,that "it is a baseless charge to say Origen sometimes doubted of the endlessness of the

punishment of demons and the wicked, for he asserts it in the strongest and clearest words;" theproof given being that "in certain passages of his writings Origen speaks of future punishment as

." (Note: Vincenzi, vol. i. pp. 76 seq. and p. 277.) Of this work and its author, spite ofthe Pope's good wishes, the Abb Freppel, Professor of Sacred Rhetoric, and Dean of the church

of St. Genevive in Paris, does not hesitate to say, "Toute critique srieuse devient impossible,lorsqu'on aborde les ouvrages d'un auteur avec le parti pris, soit de le dnigrer, soit de faire son

apologie." (Note: In his "Cours d'Eloquence Sacre," vol. i., entitled "Origene," p. 404.) Whetherthese words apply to the criticisms we have been considering, I will leave the reader to decide.

(Note: I add here a word or two respecting Chrysostom, "against whom," Mr. Oxenham says, "no

charge of Origenism, distinct or indistinct, was ever brought at the Synod of the Oak orelsewhere." (p. 623.) Any one who will take the trouble to consult the "Annals" of Baronius from

A.D. 401 to 405, almostpassim, will find that Chrysostom was credited with Origenisticleanings, and accused and reproached constantly from A.D. 401, onwards, on that account. The

main points of accusation were, first, that he favoured the Origenists, and ordained some ofthem, and, secondly, that he declined to join in condemning Origen's books, and was in the habit

himself of reading them. To the same effect is the Note by Severinus Binius, upon the history ofthe Synod of the Oak, given by Labbaeus. ("Conc. Gen.," vol. ii. p. 1329.) Jerome, too, in a letter

to Theophilus of Alexandria, (Ed. Ben. vol. iv. p. 727, Epist. 88,) says, that apart from othercrimes (Jerome's words are "scelus" and "flagitia,") Chrysostom's conduct with regard to the

Origenists was enough to account for his condemnation. So too George of Alexandria, in a tractentitled, "Res Beati Chrysostomi," given in the "Bibliotheca" of Photius, p. 252, seq. Mosheim's

account of the matter ("Eccl. Hist.," vol. i p. 359,) is, that "this Synod (of the Oak) declaredChrysostom unworthy of his episcopal office, among other causes on account of his too great

attachment to Origen and the followers of Origen.")

Not more successful is the attempt to set aside the testimony of the Early Church, as to the

purification of all through fire, by asserting, for Mr. Oxenham gives no proof of it, that thepassages cited from Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, and others, refer only to "the

doctrine of Purgatory," (p. 624,) which at the time these writers lived had not been heard of. Dr.Newman states the simple fact when he says ("Tract 90," p. 23), that "the Primitive doctrine is

not condemned in the [22nd] Article, [of the English Church,] unless indeed the Primitivedoctrine be Romish; which must not be supposed. ... That doctrine is this, that the conflagration

of the world, or the flames which attend the Judge, will be an ordeal through which all men will


17/22

pass." Dr. Harold Browne bears the same testimony, showing at considerable length what thisPrimitive doctrine of purification was. Speaking of Origen, he says, that "he considered all the

pains of the damned as merely purgatorial, and that their sins would be expiated by fire." Butadds the Bishop, "this theory of Origen is so far from being the same with the Romanist's

purgatory, that, first of all, he places it instead of hell, and secondly, so far from looking for it

between death and the resurrection, he taught that it would take place, after the resurrection, atthe day of judgment." (Note: "Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles," pp. 498, 499, 500.) This"theory," the Bishop adds, was so "interesting," and "Origen's character and learning so

captivating," that "we find eminent writers both in the East and West embracing hisspeculations," among whom the Bishop cites Gregory of Nazianzus, Ambrose, Hilary, and

Gregory of Nyssa, "all whose views spring from the same source and tend to the sameconclusion."

The passages therefore which Mr. Oxenham attempts to explain away, by saying that they speak

of Purgatory, meaning by this the Roman doctrine of Purgatory, speak in truth of something verydifferent. And indeed the quotations given, by various allusions, or references to other

particulars, such as that Apostles, like Christ Himself, must preach to spirits in prison (See"Restitution of All Things," pp. 186 and 187), show that they speak of a cleansing, whether in

this life or the next, in which the elect who have here won the prize will act as first-born andjoint-heirs with Christ, in doing His very works, whether as prophets, or priests, or kings,

throughout the coming age or ages; as prophets, in preaching like Christ to souls shut up; aspriests, in serving beside the sacrifice of fire. For "the priest's lips should keep knowledge," to

preach and intercede; but his work is even more ever to keep alive that fire, by which alone thesacrifices can lose their first and carnal form, and so ascend to God from His altar. The Church

and world at this day are full of priests without fire, or, if fire is thought of, it is only natural, notspiritual fire, in lights upon the altar. The great High Priest "came to cast fire into the earth." And

He can yet no more spare the fallen nature of His elect than the priest of old could spare thecreature which he offered. And so His members, when they shall arise as priests with Him, for

"if they were on earth they should not be priests," like Him are called to exercise the sameministry of holy fire, in that coming day when the "laver" shall be multiplied, as Scripture says,

into "ten lavers," and "the elect shall run to and fro as sparks among the stubble" (Exod. 30:18; 1Kings 7:38, 39; Wisdom 3:7, 8). For the elect are those who first after Christ have passed

through the fires, without which no perfect change is wrought in any creature; and having firstbeen sacrifices in the hands of the first great First-born High Priest, and so been changed, for no

sacrifice changes its form or ascends to God as "pillars of smoke" without fire, have in due timelike their Head, who first trod this path for them, become priests also with Him to serve and help

others, in that same passage or pass-over from life to death and death to life, which must beaccomplished to change the old creation, through death and dissolution, to be without spot or

blemish or any such thing. That those who looked for restitution in Augustine's day sawsomething of this great truth, is shown from the passage already referred to in the "City of God,"

which Mr. Oxenham so curtly attempts to set aside, and which distinctly states that somebelieved it would be brought about through the priestly intercessions or work of the elect. (Note:

"De Civ. Dei," lib. xxi. cap. 18, 24, 27.)

It only remains to notice the argument from Scripture. Here, as is so usual with writers upon this

subject, Mr. Oxenham dwells exclusively on that side of the testimony which speaks of the


18/22

"ministration of death and condemnation," though the Apostle expressly declares that thisministration is to be "abolished" and "done away," while he wholly overlooks the other side as to

the "ministration of righteousness and life," "which remaineth," without an attempt to solve theriddle of the apparent contradiction. I look in vain through Mr. Oxenham's papers for such words

as, "He will not always chide, neither will He keep His anger for ever." Not one word does he

give us of God's being "Saviour of all men, specially of them that believe;" not one word of His"swallowing up death in victory, and wiping away all tears from all faces;" not a word as to thepromise that "there shall be no more curse;" not a hint "that by death" (even possibly by the

second death) "God will destroy him that has the power of death;" not a word of "mercy uponall," because "of Him and through Him, and to Him are all things;" all this is ignored; while the

texts which seem to teach another doctrine are pressed as if there were no question respectingtheir true meaning.

Now I grant, of course, that there are texts, which seem opposed to universal restitution. We have

seen that, taken in the letter, text clashes with text on this subject. All those texts which speak of"destruction" and "judgment" are explained by what has been said above as to the way of our

salvation, and that it is by death alone that God destroys him that has the power of death. Thosepassages also which speak of the "lost," as for example St. Paul's words at the commencement of

his Epistle to the Romans, are not the declaration of the final lot of any, but of the state of all bynature, till through union with Christ they are made partakers of His redemption. In this lost state

some are held far longer than others, and therefore are in a special sense "the lost," as comparedwith the first-born who are made partakers of the first resurrection. But all the saved have once

been lost, "for the Son of Man is come to seek and save that which is lost." The fact thereforethat of these lost some are lost for a longer or a shorter period proves nothing against their final

restoration; for the Good Shepherd must "go after that which is lost until He find it." Even if thiswere not so clearly revealed, the Scripture use of the word "lost," showing that the lost indeed are

God's loss, should sufficiently assure us that that loss cannot and will not be for ever. For it is notthat the Shepherd finds a sheep which does not belong to him, or which he has not missed, or

that the Woman finds an unknown coin, and adds it to her store, or that the Father adopts astranger; but rather that the sheep whose wandering seemed to make the Shepherd poorer for a

while, is found by Him, to his own joy, and the coin that had been missed and mourned for isrestored to the treasure which without it would have been imperfect, and the son, without whom

the family circle had been incomplete, is welcomed with gladness to that home which had lackedsomething so long as he continued absent. But according to the views of those who believe in

endless punishment God is to be a loser for ever and evera loser by that creation which wasformed to show forth His praise, and which we are distinctly told will in every part of it one day

praise Him, saying, "For Thy pleasure we are and were created."

There are, however, certain other well-known texts, which are relied on as teaching this doctrine

of never-ending punishment. I do not here enter upon these, as I have examined them elsewhere,and what I have said here already is the key to almost every one of them. But on that verse which

is most commonly appealed to as deciding this question I may say a few words, I mean the well-known passage in the parable of the Sheep and the Goats, where the same word is used

by our Lord both of the life of the blessed and the punishment of the lost. Must not the sameword in both cases have the same meaning? Certainly it must. On this point I agree entirely with

Mr. Oxenham. But the question still remains, What is the true sense of the word in either case? Is


19/22

it "everlasting" or "eternal," or "that which belongs to" or is "proper to the ages?" Perhapsanother passage, where the same word again twice occurs in the same sentence, may help us to

the true answer. In his Epistle to the Romans St. Paul speaks of the "mystery which has beenkept secret," as our Authorized Version translates it, "since the world began,"

, literally "from everlasting or aeonial times," "but which now

is made manifest by the commandment of the everlasting or aeonial God," (Rom. 16:25, 26). Here the same word in the same sentence is used of "God" and of certain"times." In each case the word must have the same meaning. It would, as Mr. Oxenham rightly

contends, be absurd to hold that in the same sentence it is used in two different senses. But asdescribing these "times," which are called "aeonial," the meaning of the word cannot be

"endless," for we are elsewhere told by the same Apostle both of their beginning and ending,oftheir beginning, for St. Paul tells us that "God hath called us with a holy calling, not according to

our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesusbefore aeonial times" (2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 1:2), this "purpose of the ages" being the "hidden wisdom

of God which He ordained before the ages unto our glory" (Eph. 3:11; 1 Cor. 2:7),and of theirend, for he says again, that "now once in the end, or completion, of the ages hath He appeared to

put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself," and again, that "on us the ends of the ages are met"(Heb. 9:26; 1 Cor. 10:11). (Note: As showing that the and are

identical, see Rom. 16:25, and Col. 1:26; and 1 Cor. 2:7, and 2 Tim. 1:9.) In this passagetherefore the word, , whatever it does mean, cannot mean "everlasting," or never

ending. (Note: And yet Mr. Oxenham says, "There is nothing anywhere in the language of theNew Testament to suggest that means anything less than everlasting." (p. 726.)) This

does not prove that therefore God is not everlasting, any more than His being called the "God ofthe whole earth" proves that He is not also "God of heaven;" but the use of the same word, both

as to "God" and the "times" here spoken of, does surely demand that we should carefully inquirewhat the writer intended by this expression. My conviction is that here as elsewhere

means "connected with the ages," the truth which lies under this term having to be learnt fromwhat is elsewhere revealed in the same Holy Scriptures respecting these "ages." The Church in

these days has little to say of the "purpose of the ages." Few see that these "ages," of which weread so often in the New Testament, are but the fulfilment or substance of the "times and

seasons," of the Sabbatic year and Jubilee, under the old law, and all point to those "times ofrefreshing from the presence of the Lord, when He shall send Jesus Christ who before was

preached," and when in due order liberty and cleansing will be obtained by those who now are inbondage and unclean, and rest be gained by those who are now without their rightful inheritance.

But our Lord's words, "This is life eternal, [that is, the life of the age or ages,] that they mayknow Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent," sufficiently show that to

know the only true God, as the sender of His Son to be a Saviour, and to know that Son as aSaviour and Redeemer, mark and constitute the renewed life which is peculiar to the ages.

Aeonial or eternal life therefore is not, as so many think, the living on and on for ever and ever.It is rather, as our Lord defines it, a life, the distinctive peculiarity of which is, that it has to do

with a Saviour, and so is part of a remedial plan. And so of the rest, whether redemption,salvation, spirit, fire, punishment, or inheritance, all of which in certain texts are called "aeonial,"

the epithet always refers to the same remedial plan, wrought out by God through "worlds" or"ages." But I cannot here go further into the proof of the true meaning of this word. (Note: I have

gone into the proof of it, "Restitution of All Things," pp. 48-68.) Enough if what I have said lead


20/22

any to examine these Scriptures more closely, and to look for themselves into what they testifyof the "purpose of the ages."

On this word therefore I will only add that here, as elsewhere, Mr. Oxenham is again inconsistent

with himself; for he contends that in the matter of "everlasting or eternal punishment," the word

must mean "endless," while it is not so in reference to the "everlasting or eternal life.""Eternal life" may pass away, for though "it is said of the believer that 'he hath everlasting life'already begun in him," (p. 727, the italics are Mr. Oxenham's,) this blessing may be lost; for the

fact that "we become 'partakers of the Divine nature' in this life, (2 Pet. 1:4,) through sacramentalunion with Christ, certainly bestows no pledge of final perseverance;" (p. 628;) but the

"everlasting punishment" is an "irreversible doom." (p. 729.) So "everlasting life" may"certainly" come to an end, but not "everlasting or eternal punishment." All this is quite

characteristic of the writer, and shows how much he sees from his present "point of view."

But Mr. Oxenham has two or three questions, to which he asks an answer. First, "If Christ hadintended to teach the doctrine of eternal punishment, could He possibly have taught it in plainer

or more direct terms?" (p. 627.) To this, I answer Yes, Christ could have said "endless," a wordoften used by His professed disciples, but which He never used. (Note: It is sometimes said that

the words, "Their worm dieth not," &c., are equivalent to "endless." But on this see "Restitutionof All Things," pp. 123-128.) Secondly, "If He did notintend to teach this doctrine, could He

possibly have chosen language more certain a priori to mislead?" (p. 627.) This cannot be sobriefly answered, for it touches the whole question, why the God of Israel, our Saviour, is a "God

who hideth Himself;" why His revelations have ever been with reserve and under a veil, whetherof type under the Old, or of parable even under the New, Covenant? The fact however is that He

has always thus spoken. Nor has the other fact, that many for a while would thereforemisunderstand the revelation, kept God from still pursuing the same method of speaking to fallen

men by type and shadow and parable. What if when He said, "He that hath no sword, let him sellhis garment and buy one," and again, "He that eateth me shall live by me," some should

misunderstand the words? their misunderstanding only proved that they were yet unfit for thattruth which would shine out of the mystic words so soon as the hearers were inwardly prepared

for it. For He has many things to say unto us, which we cannot bear at first, and ourmisapprehensions of His meaning, though they show us what we are, do not really hurt us, if we

still walk humbly with Him.

The argument therefore which Mr. Oxenham presses, that the doctrine of eternal punishment

stands precisely and exactly on the same ground as transubstantiation, (pp. 628, 629,) weighty asit may be to one who looks "from a Roman Catholic point of view," may help others to see the

real worth or worthlessness of proofs like this from Holy Scripture. On this point therefore I willonly add, that both as to transubstantiation and eternal punishment, Mr. Oxenham, instead of

understanding, is I believe only misunderstanding, our Lord's most blessed words. But it is inScripture as in the books of nature and providence; not only will our sense-readings never solve

the difficulty, but such readings need to be corrected again and again if we would possess thereal truth.

Mr. Oxenham has yet another question which he seems to think unanswerable, as proving that

"there be no repentance in the grave." "What mean," he asks, "those repeated warnings about the


21/22

thief in the night, the sudden return of the master of the house or of the bridegroom, the two menin one bed, the two women at the mill, the two men in the field, of whom one was taken and the

other left?" (pp. 437 and 729.) I reply, they mean that the prize of being joint-heirs with Christ, iflost now, as Esau lost the birthright, is lost for ever. Once let us, who hear the Gospel, while we

are in this life sell our birthright, and then though we may cry "with a great and exceeding bitter

cry," the glory of the first-born is for ever gone from us, and we shall find no place or means forreversing our choice, though when too late we seek to do so carefully with tears. But I do not onthis account believe that even the Esaus have no blessing; for I read, "By faith Isaac blessed both

Jacob and Esau concerning things to come;" and so, while the birthright is for ever lost, Esau yethas hope as "concerning things to come," and will one day get a blessing, though never the

blessing of the despised birthright. Only if we here suffer with Christ shall we reign with Him:only if like Him we lose our life shall we save it for the kingdom.

In conclusion, one word as to the necessary results of looking at this question "from a Roman

Catholic point of view." From that point of view universal restitution cannot be seen. Therefore,so it is assumed, it cannot be. But they make poor discoverers who conclude there is no land

when they can see nothing but sea; so are they poor learners who deny a truth simply becausethey do not yet see it. But the Roman Catholic point of view has, if I err not, another

disadvantage, for with those who look out from it authority is ever taken for truth, instead oftruth for authority. Truth, according to the Roman theory, cannot be got save by authority. God

did indeed once speak to men. The "Word of the Lord came" in bygone times to prophets andapostles. But all this is past; revelation is complete and concluded. We are now only to learn

what we are taught by those authorities which have been ordained, like the sun and moon, toenlighten all nations. What must be the result when, according to Scripture, "the sun is turned

into darkness, and the moon into blood;" when those ordinances in Church or State which havebeen set for lights give no light, but only blood or darkness; when "the stars," or "angels of the

churches," are "fallen to the earth," and have "opened the bottomless pit, so that the sun and airare darkened as with the smoke of a great furnace" (Rev. 1:20; 9:1, 2)? What must be the

darkness of those who in such straits have no knowledge of a present Lord, to guide and teachmen by His Spirit, who therefore put darkness for light and light for darkness, and bitter for

sweet and sweet for bitter? Not of this kind was the faith of that Apostle whom the Church ofRome professes to follow. No Church authority, but the truth itself, taught him that Jesus was the

Christ. Flesh and blood did not reveal it, but the Father who is in heaven. Peter believed the truth,because it was the truth, and this, spite of its being rejected and condemned by the assembled

council of that nation which had been set apart to bear witness to the truth. Thus believing thetruth, because it was truth, he had the witness in himself. On the other hand, the very power to

recognise truth seems gone, when men have once decided that authority, not truth, is for them todetermine everything. Any lie thenceforward may be their truth. Some antichrist has but to sit in

the temple of God, and his dicta are the words of God.

I will only add the expression of my sincere thankfulness that the pages of the CONTEMPORARY

have been open to the examination of this subject. Nothing, perhaps, has made more so-calledinfidels than the assertion that the Gospel declares unending torments. No question, therefore,

can be of greater moment, nor can any theology which blinks the question meet the cravingswhich are abroad, and which I cannot but believe are the work of God's Spirit. Church reviews,

however, seem as yet generally unable to give this question a fair hearing. For the "restitution of


22/22

all things" is to the Church what the "call of the Gentiles" was to Israel; and those who, like Paul,can receive the "wider hope," like him must be content for a season to be rejected by the

Pharisees and Scribes in Israel. They may, like the Apostle, even "expound the law and theprophets from morning to evening," but some only will "believe the things spoken, and some

will not believe." God's purpose, however, as declared in Scripture, cannot be set aside because

the Church is blind to it. And my conviction is that the special opening of this truth, as it is nowbeing opened by God Himself, everywhere, is an evident sign and witness of the passing away ofpresent things in Church and State, and of the imminent judgment of apostate Christendom. But

a voice yet says, "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith." May that Spirit yetmore fully guide us into His own truth, and as a means yet more fully open those Scriptures,

which, like the world around, contain unknown and undiscovered treasures, even theunsearchable riches of Christ, laid up for lost creatures.

LONDON: PRINTED BY

SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW STREET SQUARE

AND PARLIAMENT STREET

Date post:	07-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	cincational
View:	231 times
Download:	0 times

Catholic Eschatology Examined

Documents